According to a tv documentary made about 4 years ago all about the rise and fall of the british motor industry, the mini was only sold at a loss for the first 2 years of production. The price went up into profit after ford bought one and dismantled it as a costing exercise to see how they (BMC) could sell it so cheaply. If, as you wrongly say, it had never made a penny - then it wouldn't have remained in production for as long as it did. Think about it. Badger.
message
Austin/AustinMorris/BMC/BLMC/Leyland/BL/AustinRover/RoverGroup/MGRover
companies,
The whole bloody range never made a profit, that's why first BLMC was nationalised and then why Mr Edwards had to be put in to sort the mess out, there were very few models that made money - most of them being t he higher end or sports car range (especially the exports that went State side [1])..
The problem was that the Mini was not economical to build, it was designed to be built by unskilled welders [2] and panel shop personnel, the unions quickly scuppered that idea.
[1] this is why the MGB had those rubber bumpers added so that it could be exported to the USA after their reg's for minimum bumper high changed. [2] this is why it has the external flanges along the top pf the sills and up the sides etc.
The company made just enough overall profit to survive, mainly from the landrover arm of the business. A serious lack of investment in the landrover range during the 70's was almost the downfall yet again of the whole empire, the coffers didn't exist to invest and upgrade the only item actually making a "reasonable" profit. A plan was put in place, Stage 1 was the introduction of the V8 to the long wheelbase landrovers (109 V8), Stage 2 was the introduction of more modern utility models with coil suspension and permanent 4 wheel drive (90 and 110) and Stage 3 was the introduction of better powerplants (2.5 diesel and petrol).
Never said it was an economical car to build, can't see the relevance to this conversation, you are simply going off at a tangent. Fact - the mini was sold at a loss for the first 2 years of production, to gain a market foothold. Fact - it was sold at a profit thereafter, not a large one but a profit nonetheless.
Wrong, partly. The rubber bumpers were to comply with yank legislation, yes, but relating to the 5mph impact test, and the housing of the absorber struts, nothing to do with the height really as the rubber ones are pretty much the same height as their immediate chrome predecessors.
Your point holds no water when referring to just BL cars, almost all fords and vauxhalls of the day were made in the same way. The ford crapi only lost the external welded seam along its roof when the mk 3 appeared in the late
70's, for instance. Even new cars today have weld along the top of the sills, peel back the door seal and you'll see it. It's simply a question of manufacturing techniques, not ability to weld. The skill in producing a spot weld with semi-automated spot welding equipment is not dependant on the shape of the welding arms, and it is the shape of these arms that allows you to put the weld in a given place.Now, lets get back to model railways, please! Badger.
relevance to
No, I'm telling you why it never made a profit, they would never have been able to hike the price high enough to do that, people would have just bought a larger car.
production, to
Wrong.
Wrong.
legislation, yes,
absorber
Wrong, they don't have any shockabsorbing struts....
nothing to do with the height really as the rubber ones are pretty
Total bollox.
I'm not suggesting it, I'm TELLING you, or was the ex Morris / BMC / BLMC / BL R&D man who told me that (and a lot more besides) not telling the truth then?.... BTW, this chap sorted the post design / production problems on the 1800 range so he wasn't exactly just a minor bod.
question of
producing a spot
Oh right, so they have seams sticking out of the side of the bodyshell do they, either you are blind or I've been fitting the figging replacement panels incorrectly....
Yes I think we should, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself !
You don't know the first thing, FACT.
":::Jerry::::" wrote
Bachmann USA has a larger market from which to recoup tooling costs, consequently their prices should be lower than those from Bachmann Europe.
John.
Sorry but I suggests that it demonstrates fleecing, 50 percent plus price differences are not accounted for by market area or slightly cheaper shipping costs.
My local model shop always hikes the price of a model whenever he gets down to the last couple of units. i.e. say this week I can buy a "wilton" Spam can for £60 from him. If by next week he is down to the last couple or a little more, the price would probably be reverted back to something like the RRP, say £89. That's quite a jump from one sale to the next! However, if your a collector then you will in most cases find the money if you need that model?
"Piemanlager" wrote
It's also an extremely good incentive to buy early if you know that's what his policy is.
John.
":::Jerry::::" wrote
I didn't say that any specific percentage was justified just that the USA market was larger and consequently they have a larger customer base from which to recover tooling costs and therefore prices for similar items in the USA should be cheaper.
However as the product ranges are so considerably different it's not always easy to make a direct comparison.
John.
Having owned both Chrome and Rubber bumper MGs, I can assure you that the ride height was raised by approx 1". That, along with the added weight made the rubber bumper versions a bit of a handful.
"tiM`" wrote
Ah well, my MGF doesn't have this anomoly and drives like a good un! Wonder what impact the apparant demise of MG/Rover will have?
John.
You won't be able to get spare parts? Just like model trains...
Heh, yeah, you'll have to use the MGOC / MGCC to source parts in the same way that drivers of 'classic' MGs do. ;o)
Ponders on the production of Heritage MGF shells.
"MartinS" wrote
Never had any problems when I previously owned Midgets and MGBs, even though they'd been out of production for some time.
I suspect someone will buy the MG marque and keep the TF in production, and with many parts being compatible I don't see a spares problem.
Failing that there will be enough bits in the hands of suppliers and/or MG Cars to keep owners going for a long time yet.
John.
I did say "pretty much the same", didn't I? 1" isn't exactly an awful lot of change now, is it? ISTR that the earlier chrome bumpered models had the bumper at a slightly different mounting height height to the later chromed ones, the bumper mounting height (on the shell) of the later ones being the same as the rubber ones, if I mind right. Admittedly, it's been a long time since I dismantled a "B" to weld it back together, they've gone out of fashion slightly these days, thankfully! Badger.
I dare say Rimmer Brothers alone have enough bits to cater for most eventualities..... Badger.
Did you ever drive them? I used to drive midgets, and that 1" (+ the weight of the bumper) made a significant difference to the handling.
pretty
awful lot of
1" is a hell of a lot, I'm thankful that you aren't straightening any chassis's....bumper
since I
fashion
Like f*ck they have, perhaps the ignoranus grease monkeys don't get to work on them anymore - most owners having more sense and all that....
MGB's, yes. That's what the thread was referring to.
Got in a midget once and needed helping out! (I'm 6'2") ;-) Badger.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.